The tell in all these opinion pieces is that the ascribe the decision to prosecute directly to Biden. Is he a cartoon super-villain?
kind words from Obama? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...2/02/statement-president-passing-sandy-berger
He would be correct only if there was not a criminal action committed to warrant indictment of a crook.
lol. why? he is a scumbag with zero credibility. you quoted a post of mine with an article from allen d. what did that article have to do with what i posted? can you speak for yourself instead of just telling me "read the article". im not arguing about anything. just pointing out that youre projecting your own biases onto others.
Not to mention ignoring the mountain of evidence that an actual criminal offense was likely committed.
He made some (1) valid point and some bad points. "This is a momentous occasion, and not only for President Trump. This moment portends a massive change in the norms of this nation that all Americans who care about the neutral rule of law should pay close attention to, for it raises the specter of the partisan weaponization of the criminal justice system—not just by the Democrats targeting Trump but by Republicans who will certainly retaliate when they regain control of the criminal charging process." One of the first things that crossed my mind is that with the GOP weaponization claims, they are certainly going to use it once they are in power. That's actually an understatement. The GOP Congress has already used it during Obama's Presidency, and they are doing it now during Biden's Presidency. What is almost inevitable is that if Trump, DeSantis, or someone like those two comes into power, they will use the DOJ to go after political opponents. This isn't a secret - both have made statements regarding using the DOJ as they please. "The indictment has yet to be unsealed, and there is still a slim possibility that there is a smoking gun, as there was in the obstruction cases against Richard Nixon that led his Republican colleagues to demand his resignation. We will know better when the seven-count indictment is made public, presumably on Tuesday. But based on what we know now, this does not seem like a strong case, especially if it is based on the Espionage Act of 1917, as a charge of illegally retaining documents is." This is solely his opinion since he written his book on this subject, which is that the DoJ shouldn't bring a case unless it's a very strong one. In other words, a former POTUS should be held to a higher standard for prosecution. That's fine. However, this wasn't a mere case of "possession of classified documents," as he put it. If that were the criteria, then Biden, Pence, and many other high-level officials would have been prosecuted for the possession of classified documents. This is a case where Trump was given plenty of opportunities to return those possessions but refused to do so, lied about it, possibly manipulated evidence, and obstructed justice. "Contrast these flimsy accusations with those made against Richard Nixon, which included bribing witnesses, destroying evidence, and other concrete crimes. At the moment, there is no suggestion of such open and shut accusations. Instead, they seem closer to the accusations made against presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, which never resulted in an indictment." Clinton was always cooperative, so this case is nothing like the Clinton case. There have been suggestions of Trump tampering with evidence, and one of the apparent charges is obstruction of justice. We will see once it is unsealed. "In order for the public to believe that the soon to be disclosed indictment is not politically motivated, it must be far stronger than the cases that were not brought against other political figures and at least as strong as that against Nixon. That is a high bar, but it must be reached if our Justice Department is to maintain any semblance of impartiality." It doesn't have to be as strong. It just needs to be stronger than cases that didn't result in an indictment.
basso and O's have fueled up the clown car and they're speeding towards the cliff Thelma and Louise style.
Trump criminal indictment puts the nation on a perilous path As he seeks a return to the White House, Trump becomes the first former president to face federal criminal charges, creating a combustible political and legal test the country has never seen before https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/09/trump-indictment-makes-history/ excerpts: The legal and political events will play out in parallel time, and there is no guarantee that the outcomes in court and at the ballot box will be the same. This underscores the momentous nature of the decision by the government to indict a former president and also heightens the likelihood that Trump will use the indictment to inflame the political debate, as he began to do on Thursday evening. *** This case has been in the making for months; no one could have been truly surprised by the decision to indict the former president, least of all Trump himself. That doesn’t make it any less of a test for the country. Trump has escaped in the past and been strengthened within the Republican Party whenever he has come under investigation. No one can say whether this will be any different, whether the charges in this case are sufficient to persuade a jury to take a second extraordinary step and convict a former president of crimes against the country. The legal case will inevitably be commingled in public discussion with the presidential election, and it’s difficult to say which will bring the first judgment. The country has been in roiling waters since Trump rode down the escalator eight years ago next week to launch his bid for the presidency, and will remain there until the twin judgments — in the court of law and by the electorate — have been returned. *** By Dan Balz Dan Balz is chief correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as the paper’s deputy national editor, political editor, White House correspondent and Southwest correspondent. more at the link
